What do you guys think of a minimum timer locking you in for conflict zones and powerplay zones?

[Hanerib]

Conflict zones could have Panther Clippers with FSD jammers, why not, such things already are in the lore, though perhaps not current ED canon. Maybe 25 km range, and these ships could be blown up too. I don't know if this would solve anything, but perhaps it would be interesting.

Now whether conflict zones should always appear as open instances, thats entirely different matter as FDev are locked to their philosophy. Multiplayer aspect of this game might work a lot better if there was a distinct MMO approach, with PvE zones, PvP zones.. Foundations for something like this already exist. There are even shipping lines between planets and stations. A few spec op ships when somebody attacks a clean player? That really changed nothing. There were games already in the 90's that solved these aspects.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Conflict zones could have Panther Clippers with FSD jammers, why not, such things already are in the lore, though perhaps not current ED canon. Maybe 25 km range, and these ships could be blown up too. I don't know if this would solve anything, but perhaps it would be interesting.

Now whether conflict zones should always appear as open instances, thats entirely different matter as FDev are locked to their philosophy. Multiplayer aspect of this game might work a lot better if there was a distinct MMO approach, with PvE zones, PvP zones.. Foundations for something like this already exist. There are even shipping lines between planets and stations. A few spec op ships when somebody attacks a clean player? That really changed nothing. There were games already in the 90's that solved these aspects.

This is what I am hoping these fleet carriers that were delayed are for. It would be a shame if a multiplayer tool like that was indestructible and available for the solo player.

I hope we have the chance to control them and fly them like our own ships. Think of the multicrew capabilities. The types of turreted weapons and utility.

And oh baby what if you lose one in battle! That's the fun part.

 

[aRJay]

This is where I stopped reading. Holy smokes guys.

Thats how every game is made.

I dont want to live on this planet anymore.

That is how scripted games are made, sandbox games are made so you can do what you wish when you wish to do it.

Have a nice trip home.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Its really not that fractured. The only thing that fractured it is the mode system. Again this is under the assumption Fdev follows though with the Open Only stuff.

There is no difference in powerplay or the BGS going open only. Its the same game.

Just a different set of rules with crime and punishment.

Player groups can defend themselves on a smaller level. And powerplay battles will be fought on a larger level.

However, I do believe the BGS over time will gain more traction. Because that part of the game is very in depth.

And players have the chance to sign up and rep their own faction in a place they get to pick on the map as well as name them. They are invested.

Especially in a places like colonia where its essentially all player groups in an enclosed area of space. I was out there for a while. And when I found out everyone was in other modes instead. I left after we took alberta back from MCRN.

Its fun, but its not fun not being able to win or lose. Because after I left the war continued on for 8 months after the fact. All because people remove winning and losing conditions.

Conflict zones with 2 sides to them in a tug of war. Have those winning and losing conditions. I don't think they way they are designed. They were ever supposed to be a 1 sided NPC grind fest. WIth the way they react to other commanders attacking each other. Last hitting and objectives that they added.

So under the assumption this is played out. And the way people can reset instances sometimes to remove the people for a quick farm and conflict zone win. It just doesnt make sense to allow any of this to happen.

We all know that you're only here trying to troll the carebears. You'd make up anything for that. Even if it was detrimental to PvP itself.

 

[aRJay]

And you wouldn't win the wars if you don't participate. You'd be conceding your territory.

You are assuming that people are all interested in your wars, shock news we aren't.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

This is one of the most entertaining popcorn threads I've seen in a long while.

Yay for 90s and his hair-brained ideas! \o/

 

[Misty_Dark]

Lets pretend all systems are nominal. Bugs are fixed. Combat logging is fixed. Instancing is improved all that stuff.

There are over 20k inhabitable systems in the bubble, meaning we have atleast 20k minor factions. According to EDDB, we have 76605 minor factions.
Since a minro factor nowe can be in multiple wars at the same time, we assumes we on average have 1 war per minor faction, so that is 76605 wars.

Each war spawns multiple conflict zones. So lets assume it on average is 3 (low, medium, high). This brings us to 76605 x3 = 229 815 conflict zones, lets round it down to 200k



Now the tricky issue is to estimate the number of players. as the only numbers we have available is the steam charts, and that is far from all the player. It is very likely that most players is playing without steam, so that would give that we have atleast double what the steam charts, says, and then we have the Xbox and PS4 players, so lets assume these are the same amount as Steam players as well, so we are now at around 3 times the number of steam players, lets add another round of players to bring it to atleast 4 times the steam players base.

Steam charts tells us that we have ~13k players playing at the same time, so that would give that we have ~13k*4= 52k players. on 3 different platforms. To make it easy, lets assume even spread, so divide by 3, so this give us ~17k players.


So how many of these 17k is actively playing BGS? Well we know that DW2 expedition attracted some 12k players (we assumes the dropouts from DW2 is covered by all those Explorers already out exploring), lets assume even spread here too and remove the console players, that leaves ~4k players on PC that is not actively doing BGS for quite some time now.

We are now down to 13k player (17k - 4k). And we know that not all of those players are engaged in BGS, but lets assume they are.

We will also assume all of these players are playing in Open.



So we have 13k players participating in 200k conflict zones, or ~0.07 players per conflict zone.


We have assumed that everyone is participating (well excluding the DW2/explorer crowd).
We have assumed that everyone that is left plays in Open
We have assumed that we have NO instancing problems or multiple instances in a system. (no blocking etc)



So I find it unlikely that we would encounter other players in conflict zones to begin with.


So lets collect ALL players (assume working crosplay), lets just count a war, not conflict zones, this brings us to 54k players (peak players) and 76605 wars, or on average 0.7 players per war.


We are still far from being likely to encounter another player, as we have already assumed everyone participates in BGS or the wars, we have also assumed working cross play, that everyone plays in open and that every war only has a SINGLE conflict one.


So there is going to be plenty of wars for people to farm in (your words on their activity) without risking encountering another player.
And that there are not many players participating in all the wars that rage across the servers is easy to sample, just travel to 10 random system in wars, and read the news. it will tell you how many days a current faction have been winning. Quite often both sides have a 0 here. meaning no side is actively supported by a player.




So the entire foundation of your suggestion is not supported by the numbers. There are simply not enough players participating in the wars.

 

[ADAMtheWELSHMANz]

Is yours a PVP centric PF based in Colonia OP (based on a few of your posts in here)?

Are you struggling to win wars because your opposition is beating the snot out of you from the safety of Private/Solo?

Does this all tie back into your obsession with "seasonal" bobbleghead trophies and BGS resets in this hilarious thread?

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...o-the-BGS-as-well?highlight=Seasonal+trophies

Am I close?

 

[Marra Morgan]

Eventually you ignore those people because they are a lost cause and dont understand some of the processes.

I think that's exactly what FDev are doing

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

We all know that you're only here trying to troll the carebears. You'd make up anything for that. Even if it was detrimental to PvP itself.

Not at all. Everything I said already exists if you play in open.

While I do like giving people a hard time. Not going to lie about that.

Everything about what I said here is true. All you have to do is have people on the opposing side.

Its a shame after all this time in this game. People haven't experienced it. Because they remove themselves from the engagements. Some people literally have no idea what its like doing this things with an enemy on the other side. Even after 3-5 years of gameplay. Again they abandon it because its "boring" or Abuse they hell out of it against others.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Not at all. Everything I said already exists if you play in open.

While I do like giving people a hard time. Not going to lie about that.

Everything about what I said here is true. All you have to do is have people on the opposing side.

Its a shame after all this time in this game. People haven't experienced it. Because they remove themselves from the engagements. Some people literally have no idea what its like doing this things with an enemy on the other side. Even after 3-5 years of gameplay. Again they abandon it because its "boring" or Abuse they hell out of it against others.

Or it could be you who abuses the system.

 

[House0fDerp]

I'd rather not partake in a system that locks you into a potentially highly asymmetrical combat scenario with no forewarning or recourse.

If you're actually concerned about the outcome, which seems to be the idea presented here, it's a terrible idea to commit without stacked odds, especially if expecting human opposition. The need for longevity would also risk creating a new restrictive meta around weapon choices and ships that can disengage/kite easily.

 

[Andovar]

I'd be fine if it was a specific type of CZ. So the player can easily identify that it's one of these "fight to the death" battles, and has the option as to whether they want to partake in it.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I'd be fine if it was a specific type of CZ. So the player can easily identify that it's one of these "fight to the death" battles, and has the option as to whether they want to partake in it.

Probably not something the OP is going to agree with given that, based on this thread, most people would avoid the deathmatch CZs

 

[M00ka]

Probably not something the OP is going to agree with given that, based on this thread, most people would avoid the deathmatch CZs

No really. See the OP is convinced that PvP is not just the core element of ED, it is the only element of ED. He doesn't understand that only a small minority actually participate in PvP. If he had his way, we would all be locked in open in a single system, with him being the only one allowed weapons. To him, that would be the ideal world.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Sorry but the only thing that should prevent jumping out at any time is mass lock.

Running is valid tactic. Your proposal handwaves that tactic out of the window.

I'd go as far as saying it's outright broken for small ships, which have a much lower margin for error, and mistakes requiring earlier bug-out.

Do people run in wars before given the order thier CO? People don't win fights or ground by running away. At least unless it's unwinnable from the start then, well, you don't engage. (IE: Check the targets before you commit to combat)

Also, then don't bring a small ship to a location where there is likely to be FDL's/Cutters/etc/etc/etc.. Unless of course you can handle being properly evasive, (With a decent set of thrusters a Viper is more than capable of dodging most shots from projectile weapons, even down to multicannons), Always make sure your thermal resistence is high to circumvent the biggest threat of ToT hitscan weapons, or turrets, run a dispersal weapon, (Often more useful on a smaller vessel than TLB as most of them can flat out outrun missiles with no difficulty((If possible aim for boosts of 700+)) and don't fly at your target, EVER. Trust me, small ships are more than capable of lasting long enough to survive even against bad odds. Quite often I find myself being mobbed by FDL's and the like when in a Viper. Seldom do I ever die, like really seldom. Moreover against a fair number of opponents, I can run the Viper empty of lead and still escape with sufficient evasion. Yes small ships have a smaller margin of error, but limiting the people who can actually fly because some can't is why we have "High" and "Low" states to define the difficulty in the CZ's/etc.

Honestly I think it's a good idea, but maybe have an extra level, like how they implemented higher threat USS' with the bugs. "Extreme" CZ's or something, for people with a high skill level and the ships to compete. That way no ickle nooblets wander in there accidentally and get mauled.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

No really. See the OP is convinced that PvP is not just the core element of ED, it is the only element of ED. He doesn't understand that only a small minority actually participate in PvP. If he had his way, we would all be locked in open in a single system, with him being the only one allowed weapons. To him, that would be the ideal world.

I've actually come back to this thread just out of curiosity as to how it got to this many pages. Once it became clear that the game that Frontier have made and the game the OP wants (CoD in space) are 2 different things it was kind of difficult to have a meaningful debate.

You've got to admire the OP on some level for sheer persistence though. A bit like watching someone attempt to headbutt through a brick wall.

 

[House0fDerp]

Do people run in wars before given the order thier CO?

Yes, this is a thing that has happened in many real world wars.

Also worth noting, we're individual mercenary headhunters. We have no COs.

People don't win fights or ground by running away.

That's absurd as an absolute. People don't gain ground by depleting resources into losing battles either, but people seem to forget that part somehow.

Also, then don't bring a small ship to a location where there is likely to be FDL's/Cutters/etc/etc/etc.. Unless of course you can handle being properly evasive, (With a decent set of thrusters a Viper is more than capable of dodging most shots from projectile weapons, even down to multicannons), Always make sure your thermal resistence is high to circumvent the biggest threat of ToT hitscan weapons, or turrets, run a dispersal weapon, (Often more useful on a smaller vessel than TLB as most of them can flat out outrun missiles with no difficulty((If possible aim for boosts of 700+)) and don't fly at your target, EVER. Trust me, small ships are more than capable of lasting long enough to survive even against bad odds. Quite often I find myself being mobbed by FDL's and the like when in a Viper. Seldom do I ever die, like really seldom. Moreover against a fair number of opponents, I can run the Viper empty of lead and still escape with sufficient evasion. Yes small ships have a smaller margin of error, but limiting the people who can actually fly because some can't is why we have "High" and "Low" states to define the difficulty in the CZ's/etc.

People: Complain about metas
Also People: "Abide by this new optimal meta to counter my meta disruptive idea"

Also worthy of not, high and low intensity don't work like you think they do. Drawing attention in a low CZ is just as deadly as a high and can melt ships quite rapidly.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Do people run in wars before given the order thier CO? People don't win fights or ground by running away.

That would be the WW1 tactic of running into the enemy machine gun fire you're advocating there. Feints and tactical withdrawals are recognised tactics on any modern battlefield.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

People: Complain about metas
Also People: "Abide by this new optimal meta to counter my meta disruptive idea"

Also worthy of not, high and low intensity don't work like you think they do. Drawing attention in a low CZ is just as deadly as a high and can melt ships quite rapidly.

If you say so, many of us are not the type to follow the metas. an yes, it can, but typically there are less larger ships, so less firepower, meaning it is easier to cope under the duress they may present. A CZ is'nt difficult regardless unless there are players in there. Have you seen how stupid the AI is? For goodness sake you can get the NPC launched SLF's to voluntairly ram asteroids.